Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are now well-established tools to evaluate the quality of patient-centred care. Due to the multi-faceted and multi-disciplinary nature of the practice of burn care, as well as the range of significant potential sequelae, PROM\'s should form a fundamental component of burn quality improvement programs. We aim to 1. Explore biological, psychological, and social considerations that are currently listed in burn-specific PROM tools, as well as their efficacy, 2. Evaluate biological, psychological, and social factors that are considered in new burn-specific PROM tools or those under development, and 3. Identify any opportunities with respect to burn-specific PROM tools, in order to inform future investigation in this area.
METHODS: A search was performed of MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library databases. Two independent reviewers screened article titles/abstracts and then the full texts using Covidence. All studies were graded independently according to the Quality Rating Scheme for Studies and Other Evidences.
RESULTS: The initial search yielded 552 references. Based on ab initio inclusion and exclusion criteria, 133 full-text studies were assessed for eligibility, and 21 articles were ultimately included in the systematic review. Due to study heterogeneity, a qualitative synthesis was conducted. Existing burn-specific PROMs covered a range of biological, psychological, and social factors affecting adult and paediatric patients with burn injury, but several studies required additional PROMs for a thorough evaluation. Burn-specific PROM tools under development are poised to fill this deficit.
CONCLUSIONS: Major burn injuries are a unique form of trauma, requiring coordinated management that considers numerous factors not relevant to other patient populations. Further research is necessary to validate existing burn-specific PROM tools and to develop more comprehensive burn-specific PROM measures that more comprehensively incorporate the bio-psycho-social model of health.
METHODS: A search was performed of MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library databases. Two independent reviewers screened article titles/abstracts and then the full texts using Covidence. All studies were graded independently according to the Quality Rating Scheme for Studies and Other Evidences.
RESULTS: The initial search yielded 552 references. Based on ab initio inclusion and exclusion criteria, 133 full-text studies were assessed for eligibility, and 21 articles were ultimately included in the systematic review. Due to study heterogeneity, a qualitative synthesis was conducted. Existing burn-specific PROMs covered a range of biological, psychological, and social factors affecting adult and paediatric patients with burn injury, but several studies required additional PROMs for a thorough evaluation. Burn-specific PROM tools under development are poised to fill this deficit.
CONCLUSIONS: Major burn injuries are a unique form of trauma, requiring coordinated management that considers numerous factors not relevant to other patient populations. Further research is necessary to validate existing burn-specific PROM tools and to develop more comprehensive burn-specific PROM measures that more comprehensively incorporate the bio-psycho-social model of health.
摘要：
背景：患者报告结果指标（PROM）现在是评估以患者为中心的护理质量的完善工具。由于烧伤护理实践的多面性和多学科性,以及潜在的重大后遗症，PROM应构成燃烧质量改进计划的基本组成部分。我们的目标是1。探索生物，心理,以及当前在特定于刻录的PROM工具中列出的社会考虑因素，以及它们的功效，2.评估生物学，心理,以及在新的特定于烧伤的PROM工具或正在开发的工具中考虑的社会因素，and3.确定与刻录特定PROM工具有关的任何机会，以便为该地区的未来调查提供信息。
方法：对MEDLINE（Ovid）进行了搜索，EMBASE,CINAHL,和Cochrane图书馆数据库.两名独立审稿人使用Covidence筛选文章标题/摘要，然后筛选全文。所有研究均根据研究和其他证据的质量评级方案进行独立评级。
结果：初始搜索产生552个参考。根据从头算的纳入和排除标准，对133项全文研究进行了资格评估，21篇文章最终纳入系统评价。由于研究的异质性，进行了定性合成。现有的烧伤特异性PROMs涵盖了一系列生物，心理,以及影响成人和儿科烧伤患者的社会因素，但是一些研究需要额外的PROM进行全面评估。正在开发的特定于刻录的PROM工具已准备好填补这一赤字。
结论：严重烧伤是一种独特的创伤，需要考虑与其他患者人群无关的众多因素的协调管理。需要进一步的研究来验证现有的特定于烧伤的PROM工具，并开发更全面的特定于烧伤的PROM措施，以更全面地纳入健康的生物心理社会模型。
方法：对MEDLINE（Ovid）进行了搜索，EMBASE,CINAHL,和Cochrane图书馆数据库.两名独立审稿人使用Covidence筛选文章标题/摘要，然后筛选全文。所有研究均根据研究和其他证据的质量评级方案进行独立评级。
结果：初始搜索产生552个参考。根据从头算的纳入和排除标准，对133项全文研究进行了资格评估，21篇文章最终纳入系统评价。由于研究的异质性，进行了定性合成。现有的烧伤特异性PROMs涵盖了一系列生物，心理,以及影响成人和儿科烧伤患者的社会因素，但是一些研究需要额外的PROM进行全面评估。正在开发的特定于刻录的PROM工具已准备好填补这一赤字。
结论：严重烧伤是一种独特的创伤，需要考虑与其他患者人群无关的众多因素的协调管理。需要进一步的研究来验证现有的特定于烧伤的PROM工具，并开发更全面的特定于烧伤的PROM措施，以更全面地纳入健康的生物心理社会模型。
